MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986937964 · doi:10.1051/ebr:2003014

<i>Bt</i>crops: Predicting effects of escaped transgenes on the fitness of wild plants and their herbivores

2003· article· en· W1986937964 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Biosafety Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCropGenetically modified cropsRapeseedRange (aeronautics)BiotechnologyAgronomyAgroforestryTransgeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One prominent concern about genetically modified crops is the possibility of environmental impacts from the movement of fitness-enhancing traits to wild plant populations. Decisions to deregulate Bt crops in the USA have relied strongly on arguments that these crops will not interbreed with wild relatives in the permitted growing regions. Limited attention therefore has been directed to analyses of the consequences of gene flow. To provide a transparent evaluation process for risks associated with insecticidal transgene escape, we crafted a series of questions designed to guide this aspect of the risk assessment. We then explored the current knowledge base available for answering such risk-related questions for three Bt crops (cotton, rapeseed, and rice). First, we generated a list of wild relatives of these crops. A definitive list of potential transgene recipients is not yet possible for some crops. Sufficient data are not available for some crops to eliminate certain related plant species from consideration of fertile hybrid formation, thus making lists for these crops subject to speculation. Second, we queried the HOSTS database (UK) to obtain a worldwide listing of lepidopteran species that feed on these crops and their wild relatives, and to determine the host range of the larvae. To our knowledge, this list of 502 lepidopteran species is the first such list published for these crops and wild crop relatives. Third, we used a data set maintained by the Canadian Forest Service to assess Bt toxin susceptibility for these lepidopterans. Only 3% of those species have been tested for susceptibility; and the literature suggests that generalizations about susceptibility among taxa are difficult due to the variability within families. Fourth, we consulted the literature to interpret what is known about the ability of lepidopterans to regulate plant fitness or invasiveness. We could not eliminate the possibility of ecological release due to plant resistance against lepidopterans. In fact, there is strong experimental evidence that lepidopteran herbivores do limit the distribution and/or abundances of at least some wild plant species. Neither could we eliminate the possibility that non-target lepidopterans might have important functions in the ecosystem as pollinators or alternate hosts to natural enemies of pest species. This study suggests that crucial data are lacking for the development of a credible scientific basis to confirm or deny environmental risks associated with the escape of Bt transgene constructs to wild relatives. Given the absence of information on the identity, level of susceptibility, and ecological roles of lepidopterans exploiting specific wild relatives of Bt crops, we suggest that new efforts be directed to assessing possible consequences of lepidopteran mortality on resistant wild relatives.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it